Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my friend that I started out by saying that Mr. Dion had a very illustrious career in Parliament and before Parliament. As author of the Clarity Act, he provided a lot of certainty for Canadians and showed a strong federalist voice, so I agree with the hon. member.

In fact, I had the pleasure of working with that hon. member on the public safety committee for some time. Perhaps he is another example. I miss the opportunity of working with him as a parliamentary secretary, as someone who brought experience from academia and law enforcement, on studies, but he seems to no longer be in that role. Perhaps he had a disagreement with the Prime Minister as well.

This is a Prime Minister whose second vote in the House was to withdraw Canadian jets from the fight against ISIS. I am sure people concerned with security had concerns about that. I know the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill had that concern. A lot of the people who had concerns about the Prime Minister's decision were cast aside or are on the back benches. It is time for them to stand up as well.

Mr. Speaker, the very last comment the member made was about other members standing up. Does the member have any thoughts on the member for Etobicoke Centre, who in the past has been a strong proponent of building democracies and electoral fairness and who took disputed ballots all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada? Does the member for Durham have any thoughts on what the member for Etobicoke Centre should be saying in a situation like this?

Mr. Speaker, that is a surprise question, but fortunately, I am prepared to respond to it. The member for Etobicoke Centre announced just a week ago that he is not running again, after so many delicious baked goods in Toronto funded his legal fund to challenge the results of the 2011 election, where he had problems with vouching, something the Liberals are bringing back, making it easier for voter fraud and manipulation to take place. The member for Etobicoke Centre spent tens of thousands of dollars fighting it to the Supreme Court of Canada, because at the time, he said that it was about the integrity of the system.

Last night, the member for Etobicoke Centre stormed the stage after a meeting had concluded, ignored the fact that ballots were littering the floor, that people had left, that there were no protocols and that they were not following the constitution, and he rammed through the orders from the Prime Minister's Office to make sure that however they could get there, they needed to exact revenge on a member who had left their benches.

Sadly, it is backfiring. The government did not follow procedure well then, and it has not since question period here today. Sometimes it is the details. I have seen this on every file with the government. It will allow a murderer to get PTSD treatment and not hold him to account. It will make mistake after mistake. It will bring in bills that end pipelines and force the government to buy one. It is the details.

Governing requires seriousness. It is more than just photographs and hashtags, and Canadians are beginning to realize that this is all this Prime Minister has to offer. Good news, a year from now, there is a choice on this side of the chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you can see, I am positioned very close to both members in question. I distinctly heard the member for Mégantic—L'Érable start speaking before the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. Mr. Speaker, I think you know what happens in a situation like this, so without going into further detail, I would certainly say right now that I move on this point of order, seconded by my colleague, the member for Perth—Wellington that the member for Mégantic—L'Érable be now heard.

I am afraid the motion is not in order. If we check the records, we will see that the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable got up to speak before I even recognized the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. That is according to our records, and I would have to strike that.

Mr. Speaker, I realize we are dealing in real time. However you said yourself when you stood that you had two issues. One was the member for Mégantic—L'Érable started speaking before the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I think your comment may be different from what you are hearing from the table.

When you look at it again, I think you will see that you did in fact recognize the member. Certainly members on this side heard you recognize the member, and I believe the motion is in order.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that you do not have to take that last one under advisement. It is completely up to you, because I believe the member was trying to challenge the Chair. I do not think it would be appropriate for the member to challenge the Chair. Your ruling was very clear. Anyone listening to it would have understood the ruling. The member should just be allowed to stand up and continue his remarks, because he was recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. I am very keen on speaking, but unlike we saw last night, I am willing to put principle and procedure ahead of my own interests. The convention is that members rise before they are called upon to speak. Therefore, what you said in the context of your ruling is hard for me to understand in light of the convention. The convention is that members do rise before they are called upon to speak. I rose expecting to speak, and I hope members vote in my favour in light of the impending motion.

However, the convention of this place is that all members who wish to speak rise and the Speaker calls on the member who has caught the eye of the Speaker first. If there is a dispute, a member could propose a motion that the member has the right to be heard. I think you will find that is the convention. It would be important for you to at least clarify your ruling, in light of that convention.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my friend, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, what he refers to as a convention is more accurately described as sloppy practice. Far too often, people stand and await the Speaker recognizing them.

It is very clear in our Standing Orders that when the Speaker is standing all members must be seated. It is tolerated, I suppose, that people stand up, waiting because this place is increasingly not under the control of the Speaker, with all due respect, but under the control of party whips in the back room who give people lists and give the Speaker a list. The point of it is, when we all stand to be recognized in debate, that is one thing. When people expect to be recognized and are standing, they are actually violating the Standing Orders. It is not a convention. It is simply sloppy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I heard, unless my ears are playing tricks on me, you recognize my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. The reason I rose on a point of order is because in the first intervention by my colleague, he said he would be splitting his time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I was anticipating my colleague who sits directly behind me to stand and start speaking. Once I heard you recognize him, I also noticed that my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable started speaking. That is why I rose on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, you can check the audiotapes. I would not have risen in my place on a point of order, had I not, first, heard my colleague reference the fact that he would be splitting his time, and second, heard that the member was recognized by the Chair. I have been here nearly 15 years. I have been in the position as parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for nine of those years. I am very familiar with procedural matters. In fact, on this very question in procedures and practices, I have seen it employed and I have employed it myself on several occasions in the last 15 years.

In other words, I believe I know what I am doing from a procedural standpoint. I would not have stood in my place and made a point of order had I not heard you recognize my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. The only reason I stood on a point of order is because my other colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable started speaking and I heard him start speaking before my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to please consult with the audiotapes and the visual tapes and I think you will find that those two tapes support my intervention.

Mr. Speaker, my interpretation is not the same as that of the members across the way and that is why it is important that we recognize that we are not supposed to be debating this issue. You as the Speaker made a ruling. If the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan does not want to speak, I have a 20-minute speech in my hand and I am prepared to deliver it on this issue. I have already indicated that I would like to speak on it, so if the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan does not want to speak, I would suggest that it might be appropriate to go to another speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to address this important concurrence question with respect to foreign policy.

Before I do that, I want to make a brief comment about the very exciting news out of Pakistan overnight, which I think is relevant to Canada's foreign policy in general.

The Pakistan Supreme Court acquitted Asia Bibi of false blasphemy charges. This is a monumental day in terms of international human rights. In particular, I want to quote the chief justice of Pakistan in his ruling. He said, “Tolerance is the basic principle of Islam.” He also said, “Islam is also very tough against those who level false allegations of a crime.”

I want to express what I think is a sentiment shared by all members of Parliament, that being our enthusiasm about that ruling. There is still much more work to do when it comes to responding to the challenges around the blasphemy law in Pakistan, but this is a monumental step forward for justice, equality and the rule of law. This is a day of great joy for many in the Canadian Pakistani community, as well as for people in Pakistan itself.

I think it is important to recognize as well some of the great defenders of human rights who have been engaged in the Asia Bibi case, some of whom have given their lives in the context of that advocacy. Salmaan Taseer, the former governor of Punjab, and Shahbaz Bhatti, the former federal minister of minorities, both knowingly risked their lives to speak out on that case. In fact, it was Shahbaz Bhatti's advocacy for religious minorities that inspired the previous Conservative government's initiative to create the office of religious freedom. I think it is important for us as parliamentarians to continue to engage in constructive dialogue around these issues, to welcome this step forward and also to encourage further steps that can help address the challenges faced by religious minorities in Pakistan.

From there, I would like to comment on the particulars of this motion.

Members are applauding that. I think the comments I have just made are important and relevant and worth having on the record, and ones that we all agree with.

However, the particular item before the House is the appointment of Stéphane Dion as a special adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I recall Stéphane Dion's long parliamentary career. He was someone who I had the opportunity to cross swords with in this place a bit. We did not always or even often agree on the particular exchanges we were having, but I do not think anyone would doubt his commitment to this country, and certainly his commitment to something that most of us believe is very important, the idea of Canada remaining united and the value that has come from us being together as one country.

Some of the debates I recall us having in this place related to the office of religious freedom and the current government's decision, during the time when he was minister, to cancel the office of religious freedom. It was a decision, again no doubt, that he came to from a place of sincere motivation, but one with which we in the official opposition profoundly disagreed.

What we have seen, unfortunately, is how no longer having the office of religious freedom has limited our ability to engage effectively on these issues, as much as the government said at the time that now these issues could simply be raised by individual ambassadors in each country. I think we should recognize that ambassadors who are particular to a country have many different things on their plate and should be engaging with human rights issues. However, it is useful to have, within the department, people with particular expertise on these issues and an ambassador for religious freedom who can be a public voice and an internal voice in terms of these issues. I know that these debates that we had around the office of religious freedom are some of the context that we bring to the consideration of the decision by the government to appoint this particular member to that position in Europe, and obviously it is interesting in terms of the perspective that it brings.

What I really appreciated about the previous minister is this. He was interested in engaging in deeper conversation about issues, about his world view, about the way his foundational assumptions about the way the world worked informed the decisions he made.

I did not often agree with the conclusions he came to about the way we engage in the world, but I appreciated his willingness to speak about those things. I recall a speech he gave at the University of Ottawa, for example, where he championed his philosophy of what he called “responsible conviction”, which he articulated as a form of erring on the side of an ethos of responsibility in how we engage.

I disagree with the way he put that together, though, because I think the previous government's emphasis on a principled foreign policy recognized that there were certain immutable principles that should inform our engagement. Absolutely, we need to engage around the world, but our engagement must always be rooted in the conviction that there are some things we cannot compromise, some principles that cannot be transgressed, and that we must even be willing to risk the displeasure of other countries that we engage with around the world if that displeasure would be constructive in the pursuit of our fundamental principles.

A principled foreign policy is one that calls for us always to champion fundamental human rights. I spoke earlier in my remarks about the situation in Pakistan. On many people's minds in recent days is the situation in Sri Lanka. I just had an opportunity to be interviewed on that issue. It is great to see the media taking great interest today in substantive issues like the situation in Sri Lanka. I certainly appreciate that.

There is a concern about a decline in democracy and human rights there with the appointment, outside of any normal constitutional or parliamentary procedure, of a previous president to serve as prime minister. That has happened in the context of a lack of progress on issues of justice and reconciliation, which is very much needed after the civil war in Sri Lanka.

This is a good example of where Canada's principled voice on the world stage would be very much appreciated. Under the previous government, and I know the Liberals are fond of talking about him, Stephen Harper took the principled decision that Canada would boycott the Commonwealth summit in Colombo. I am glad that the member for Winnipeg North applauds this decision, because it was very much recognized in the Tamil and other communities as important for the advancement of human rights. Stephen Harper's decision was a powerful message to the world that Canada was standing for fundamental human rights in the context of that situation, and would continue to do so.

In the last election, in the case of Sri Lanka in particular, the Liberals made many promises about how engaged they would be on issues of fundamental human rights, and yet there was absolutely no action taken. In fact, I referred to the cancellation of the former office of religious freedom. That office had an important program operating on the ground in Sri Lanka, and yet the government, despite following through on the promises it had made, cancelled the office of religious freedom.

This was one of many cases in which we see the failure of the government to align its actions with the promises it has made. This is a case, again, where a principled foreign policy could have an important role to play.

One of the other issues relevant to a principled foreign policy is that we need to follow through on a motion on Iran that we passed in this place. I really have to say that I do not think the government is likely to adopt a principled foreign policy any time soon.

With some degree of pessimism about the trajectory of the government, a government we will hopefully soon replace, I move: